Pretty simple reasoning if you think about it. What would you prefer? For instances like this, and there are likely more than this one, to come out into the open and be reported meaning that innocent people are set free, or for these people to be severely punished and therefore provide a strong incentive to not come out and speak the truth? Stop focusing on vengeance and start looking at justice. Not a perfect form of justice, true, but more justice than innocent people sitting in jail and having a black mark on them for the rest of their lives.

“A fool is not a person who does not know something. Rather, a fool is a person who is given information but who chooses to ignore what he is given based on how he wants things to be, rather than how things are."

The point is that your outrage is so selective so as to make a thread about an extremely rare occurrence in which everyone bemoans the fate of all the men wrongfully accused of rape while glossing over the fact that the real problem is that men rape women all day everyday and a only a tiny fraction of them ever face justice. Being raped and being wrongfully accused of rape are both tragedies. There is a huge difference in the scale of the two problems though but your anger towards women, for whatever reason, makes you unable to grasp that so you focus your attention on the much smaller of the two problems.

No, that's not the fucking tragedy of this. That people are raped everyday is a tragedy all its own that shouldn't fucking cheapen what happens to guys that are wrongfully accused.

There should be a huge shitstorm if nothing happens as a result of you admitting you put an innocent man in jail for 9 years and will have him labelled as a child rapist for the rest of his life.

If you took a piece of candy from a convenience store, feel absolutely terrible about it, and then hear on the news that someone else did that, returned the candy, and got their arm cut off with a cleaver... how likely would you be to return it?

“A fool is not a person who does not know something. Rather, a fool is a person who is given information but who chooses to ignore what he is given based on how he wants things to be, rather than how things are."

If you took a piece of candy from a convenience store, feel absolutely terrible about it, and then hear on the news that someone else did that, returned the candy, and got their arm cut off with a cleaver... how likely would you be to return it?

Maybe I'm just a cynical bastard (I am) but I doubt anyone's conscience would convince them to turn themselves in 10 years after the fact if it didn't after 1 year or even 5 years. Regardless if there was a punishment or not.

Maybe I'm just a cynical bastard (I am) but I doubt anyone's conscience would convince them to turn themselves in 10 years after the fact if it didn't after 1 year or even 5 years. Regardless if there was a punishment or not.

Ummm... are we in the same thread? Did we read the same article? I'm a bit confused now.

“A fool is not a person who does not know something. Rather, a fool is a person who is given information but who chooses to ignore what he is given based on how he wants things to be, rather than how things are."

If you took a piece of candy from a convenience store, feel absolutely terrible about it, and then hear on the news that someone else did that, returned the candy, and got their arm cut off with a cleaver... how likely would you be to return it?

So we're okay with just letting criminals go just because they fessed up?

So we're okay with just letting criminals go just because they fessed up?

Be careful where you want to draw that line.

What's more important to you? The men going free, or the women being punished? If the two are for the most part mutually exclusive, than I know where I stand.

“A fool is not a person who does not know something. Rather, a fool is a person who is given information but who chooses to ignore what he is given based on how he wants things to be, rather than how things are."

Well fear of repercussions is a pretty common one. Fear of what will happen if charges aren't successful or if prosecution declines to charge is a pretty significant issue that law enforcement does need to address.

Shades of grey. I can see valid arguments for both sides. Plus I'm not sure what's to be gained from prosecuting someone for something they did 9 years ago when she was 11. Not to mention it will help perpetrate the myth of rampant false accusations.

And there SHOULD BE repercussions for perjury. the INNOCENT man should sue the lying, coward of a DA, the county, the state AND the perjurious daughter. THEN write a book, AND expose it all. And then when the daughter comes around wanting some of that cash he should just turn and walk away from her, wordless. Dont call me heartless, I see the results of rape on a regular basis. Heartless is letting this little witch get off scot free.

---------- Post added 2012-11-23 at 03:34 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Wells

As this discussion goes forward I can let people know I'm just going to flat ignore anyone who says anything along the lines of "death is too good of a punishment".[COLOR="red"]

Then how about lock her ass in a cage like her father was for every day from the time she was 18 to the day he was released... there... she's known for fucking years that he was innocent and kept her mouth shut... there should be consequences for that bullshit.

---------- Post added 2012-11-23 at 03:39 PM ----------

Originally Posted by endgame619

Casandra Kennedy is in a mission trip in Mexico, said Miller. She wants to reach out to her father.

"I think the most important story is that maybe a little girl who was hurt all her life now can have
a decent relationship that she's always wanted," said Miller.

FUCK THAT.

Sorry, she should have thought about that before she accused him of rape, not years and years after he's been rotting in a fucking cage.

---------- Post added 2012-11-23 at 03:40 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Wells

I'm looking at the thing as a whole. She was very young. It was a long time ago. There are concerns about discouraging reporting. You keep focusing solely on the last part when I'm saying you have to look at the case as a whole.

Let's take the case further. Where do you draw the line? Thievery? Rape? Arson? Murder? In all cases, someone wrongfully accused might not be freed unless the true criminal fesses up.

False equivalencies. You're discussing a three party system, whereas this is specifically a two party system. And I ask again. Do you care more about wrongfully accused men, or vengeance?

“A fool is not a person who does not know something. Rather, a fool is a person who is given information but who chooses to ignore what he is given based on how he wants things to be, rather than how things are."

False equivalencies. You're discussing a three party system, whereas this is specifically a two party system. And I ask again. Do you care more about wrongfully accused men, or vengeance?

Excuse me? Explain the difference between claiming someone you dislike mugged you in an alleyway and claiming someone you dislike raped you?

Why do you insist on setting the example that perjury will go unpunished?

If you avoid prosecuting false allegations because of some ungrounded fear then you validate it as a form of retribution. Tell me no one has ever fabricated claims to the police to get back at someone in a bitter divorce and then you might have a point.

Given the time between the incidents I doubt its the same DA, not to mention they wouldn't let the same guy make that call.

In all likelihood the father will sue the state for compensation and he should.

Actually, Wells, there is an amazing thing called the internet, in fucking fact, the same DA that put Mr Kennedy is the SAME damn DA as today... so yes, I'm thinking either the DA should do time for false and malcious prosecution, or, the accuser should. You want real victims to come forward, then encourage that. The precedent you are endorsing of NOT prosecuting the lying daughter is going to FURTHER stigmitize any victims that come forward, They are going to start wondering, about the validity of the justice system. you ENCOURAGE victims by showing them that their cases will be taken seriously. Given the free fucking pass that y'all want to give Cassandra Kennedy folks are going to be MORE hesitant to take victims seriously.

---------- Post added 2012-11-23 at 04:01 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Lemons

.

Or, it might encourage truth telling in the first place and saving the taxpayer the money of a trial and housing and care for the falsely accused and the resulting fucking lawsuit at the end.

So we're okay with just letting criminals go just because they fessed up?

Be careful where you want to draw that line.

They get to nagotiate on what the terms are, if they admit to the crime. That's how plea bargains work. We already have a system in place for people to get lower punishment, not only if they confess, but can prove they were mentally incapable of making a rational decision.